X-Message-Number: 1588 Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 01:04:27 CST From: Brian Wowk <> Subject: CRYONICS: reincarnation, etc. Regarding the recent discussion about neurosuspension; I believe disembodied brains are less disturbing than disembodied heads. I always describe neurosuspension as "suspension of the brain," and only mention that the brain is kept within the head as a "protective container" if asked about details. I do not believe this is at all deceptive. On the contrary, it is very accurate since the brain, after all, is what we are *really* after in a neurosuspension. Retention of the surrounding tissues is more of a surgical detail than anything else. Describing neurosuspension as brain suspension also defuses concerns about bringing people back as disembodied heads. When you talk about preserving brains, it's pretty clear to most people that some kind of transplant or tissue regeneration will be necessary to get a person back at the far end of the process. Manipulating brains within and between bodies is perceived as a much more benign activity than doing the same with heads. As evidence, I cite the fact that a few years ago a TV movie was made that depicted the successful brain transplant of an accident victim in a very favorable light. By contrast, head transplants are the stuff of B grade horror flicks. ---------- Regarding Charles Platt's question about reincarnation on the Faith Daniels show: These kinds of "afterlife" questions are very simple to deal with. The answer is that cryonics patients are *not dead*, period. A person is not dead until the information within their brain is irretrievably lost. Cryonics patients (optimistically) do not fall into this category. Cryonics patients are properly regarded as being in a comatose state, and therefore not subject to any thorny supernatural conundrums. I think that misunderstanding of this issue, by the way, was one of the unfortunate deficits of the Omni article. --- Brian Wowk Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=1588